3.
A fourth objection to this doctrine is, that if, by the
perseverance of the saints is intended, that they live anything
like lives of habitual obedience to God, then facts are against
it.

To this
objection I reply: that by the perseverance of the saints, as I
use these terms, is intended that, subsequently to their
regeneration, holiness is the rule of their lives, and sin only
the exception. But it is said, that facts contradict this.

(1.) The case
of king Saul is brought forward as an instance in point to sustain
the objection.

To this I
reply: that it is far from being clear that Saul was ever a truly
regenerate man. He appears, in connexion with his appointment to
the throne of Israel, to have been the subject of divine
illuminations, in so far as to be much changed in his views and
deportment, and as to have had another heart, in so much that he
prophesied, &c.; but it is nowhere intimated that he became a
truly regenerate man, a truly praying child of God. Similar
changes are not unfrequently witnessed in men, and changes
evidently brought about by the illuminations of the Holy Spirit,
where there is no good reason to believe that the subjects of them
were truly regenerated. From the history of Saul, subsequent to
the change of which we are speaking, we gather absolutely nothing
that looks like true piety. His case therefore cannot properly be
brought as an objection to the doctrine in question, for the plain
reason, that evidence is wanting that he ever was a saint. His
prophesying, as is evident from the connexion in which it is
spoken of, was merely speaking fervently upon religious subjects.
He was so much enlightened, as to manifest for a time considerable
excitement upon the subject of religion, and as to mingle with the
schools of the prophets, and take an interest in their exercises.
But this was only similar to what we often witness, when the end,
and indeed when all the circumstances, duly considered, show
clearly that true regeneration has not taken place. Who has not
seen men have, for the time being, another, but not a holy, heart?

(2.) It is
said, that David did not persevere in obedience, in the sense that
obedience was his rule, and sin only the exception. To this I
reply--

(i.) It is
not pretended that there is any doubt respecting the final
salvation of David.

(ii.) That
David did not persevere, in the sense above defined, wants proof.
His Psalms, together with his whole history, show that he was a
highly spiritual man. He was an eminent type of Christ, and, for a
man in his circumstances, was a remarkable saint. To be sure,
David practised polygamy, and did many things that in us, under
the light of the gospel, would be sin. But it should be
considered, that David lived under a dispensation of comparative
obscurity, and therefore many things which would now be unlawful
and sinful, were not so in him. That David, with comparatively few
exceptions, lived up to the light he had, cannot be reasonably
called in question. He is said to have been a man after God's own
heart. I know this is said of him as a king, but I know also that,
as king this could not have been said of him, unless he had feared
and served the Lord, and in the main lived up to the light with
which he was surrounded.

(3.) It is
also said, that Solomon king of Israel did not persevere, in the
sense contended for in this discourse. Of Solomon I would say,--

(i.) That he
was manifestly a type of Christ.

(ii.) That he
at one period of his life, for how long a time it does not appear,
fell into grievous backsliding, and appears in some sense to have
tolerated idolatry.

(iii.) His
final apostacy has been inferred from the fact that idolatry was
practised in Israel after his supposed repentance, and until the
end of his life. The people were allowed to offer sacrifices, and
to burn incense in the high places, and therefore his repentance
was not genuine.

To this I
reply, that the same was true also during the reign of several of
the pious kings who succeeded him, and is probably to be accounted
for by the fact that neither Solomon nor his successors had, for a
considerable time, political power or influence enough to abolish
idolatry altogether. The people were greatly divided in their
religious views and worship. Many were the priests and devotees of
the groves and high places, and multitudes of the high and more
influential classes clave to their idols. It was a very difficult
matter to put an effectual stop to idolatry, and perhaps was
impossible in Solomon's day, and for a long time after. Solomon's
idolatrous wives and concubines had doubtless exerted great
influence in rendering idolatry popular with the people, and it
was not until several generations had passed away, that the pious
kings seem to have had sufficient political power to banish
idolatry from the nation. Solomon's final apostacy, then, cannot
be inferred from the fact, that idolatry continued to be practised
in the nation until long after his death. There is no reason to
believe that he continued to practise it himself. But,--

(iv.) I
remark, that, from the writings of Solomon, we may gather
sufficient evidence that, in the general, he did not live a wicked
life, though he fell into many grievous sins. His Ecclesiastes
seems to have been written after he was reclaimed from
backsliding, as appears from the fact, that the book contains many
statements of his views and experiences while in his wanderings
from God. It appears to me, that the book is inexplicable upon any
other supposition. In his wanderings from God, as is common, he
fell into great doubts and embarrassments in regard to the works
and ways of God. He became sceptical, and in the book under
consideration, he states the sceptical views that he had
entertained. But the book, as a whole, contains conclusive
evidence of piety at the time it was written. This probably will
not be called in question.

Again: the
Proverbs and Song of Solomon show, that he was not
only a pious man, but also, at least when they were written, a
highly spiritual man. Especially is this true of his Song. The
Proverbs were doubtless the result of deep and protracted
reflection and observation, and were written at intervals
extending through his whole or nearly his whole reign. He was a
man of great study, and of great learning for his day. He must
have spent much time in deep meditation and communion with God,
and there is no greater mistake, as I apprehend, than to suppose
that Solomon was an apostate, or that he lived anything like a
majority of his days in a state of backsliding from God. His
profound wisdom, manifested on various occasions, and his history
and writings altogether, when duly considered, render it extremely
probable, if not certain, that his backsliding was but temporary,
and that he was soon reclaimed. We have little more recorded of
him than his public life, except what is contained in his own
writings. Should we judge of him only by his recorded history,
apart from his writings, we might infer that he lived, at least
for a long time, in sin; but from his writings we must infer, that
his life as a whole was one of deep thought, much profound
meditation upon God and divine things, much research into the
works, and ways, and government of God, both moral and
providential, and of much spirituality. His practice of polygamy
on so large a scale, and many other things that appear in his life
were, in the substance and principle of them, common to the most
pious men of that age and nation. Solomon's case, when duly
considered, cannot disprove the doctrine under consideration. Many
things in him that shock us, might have been consistent with his
living in a state of acceptance with God.

4.
Observation, it is said, conflicts with the doctrine in question.
So far as human observation can go, I admit that this is so; that
many persons seem to be born again, and to run well for a time,
and afterwards fall, and apparently live and die in sin. But it
should be remarked, that observation cannot be conclusive upon
this subject, because we cannot certainly know, that any of the
cases just alluded to are real conversions to God. Hence the
objection fails of conclusiveness. Were it certainly known, that
such persons were truly regenerated, and that afterwards they fall
away and live in sin, and die in that state, it would follow, that
the doctrine, at least in the form in which I have stated it,
cannot be true. But this is not, and cannot be certainly known by
observation. If, as I trust, it has been found to be true, in our
examination, that the Bible plainly teaches the doctrine in
question, in the form in which I have stated it, it must follow of
course that observation cannot disprove it, for the reason that it
is not a question that lies within the reach of observation, in
such a sense as to admit of certainty, or of any such kind or
degree of evidence as to shake the sure testimony of the Bible.

5. But an
appeal is also made to consciousness to overthrow this doctrine.
It is said, that the real saints, at least in some instances, know
themselves to have lived a great part of their lives in sin, and
even by far the greater part of their days subsequent to
regeneration.

This
objection or assertion may be answered substantially as was the
last. It is true, indeed, that the saints may know themselves to
have been regenerated; and it is also true, that many may think
they know this when they are deceived. A man may know himself to
be awake, but from this it does not follow that no one can think
himself awake while he is asleep. But since upon examination, it
has been found that the Bible plainly teaches the doctrine of the
saints' perseverance, in the sense in which I have defined it, we
must of course yield the objection founded on experience, and
grant that such experiences can weigh nothing against the
testimony of God. The objection of course cannot be conclusive;
for it is not one of the nature that admits of no error or doubt.
The Bible defines all the essential attributes of Christian
character. Now, if upon examination, perseverance in the sense
here insisted on is proved to be one of them, it is absurd to
array against the doctrine the consciousness of not persevering.
It is to assume that we, and not the Bible, can decide who is a
Christian, and what are the essential attributes of Christian
character.

6. But it is
also objected to the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints,
that several passages of scripture plainly teach that some real
saints have fallen away and been lost. I will therefore now
proceed to the examination of those passages upon which the
principal reliance is placed to disprove this doctrine. The first
one which I shall notice is found in 1 Cor. i. 10, "Moreover,
brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our
fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2.
And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3.
And did all eat of the same spiritual meat; 4. And did all drink
the same spiritual drink; (for they drank of that spiritual Rock
that followed them, and that rock was Christ); 5. But with many of
them God was not well pleased, for they were overthrown in the
wilderness. 6. Now these things were our examples, to the intent
we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7.
Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them, as it is written;
The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8.
Neither let us commit fornication as some of them committed, and
fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9. Neither let us tempt
Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of
serpents. 10. Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured,
and were destroyed of the destroyer. 11. Now all these things
happened unto them for ensamples, and they are written for our
admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. 12.
Wherefore, let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he
fall."

It is said of
this passage, that the history of the Israelites is here
introduced as a warning to real Christians; consequently, the
apostle must have assumed, that those of the Israelites who fell
were real saints, or there would have been no pertinency or force
in his allusion. To this I reply, that the pertinency and force of
the allusion appear to me to have been as follows. The Israelites
composed the visible church of God. At the time mentioned, they
were all professors of religion. All possessed great light and
privileges compared with the rest of the world; they therefore
felt confident of their acceptance with God, and of their
consequent safety and salvation. But with many of them it turned
out, that God was not well pleased. Some of them turned out to be
idolaters and were destroyed. Now, says the apostle, let this be a
warning to you. You are in like manner professors of religion. You
are all members of the visible church of God to which the promises
are made. You have great light and privileges when compared with
the world at large. You may think yourselves to be altogether
safe, and sure of final salvation. But remember, that the history
of the ancient church is written for your benefit; and the
destruction of those just alluded to, is recorded for your
admonition. Be not high minded, but fear. Do not be presumptuous,
because you are members in good standing in the visible church,
and possess great light and privileges; but remember, that many
before you, who were like you in these respects, have lost their
souls; "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest
he fall."

If the
apostle had intended to convey the impression that they were real
saints that fell in the wilderness, and that real saints do fall
away and are lost, he would no doubt have said, let him that
standeth, instead of him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest
he fall. The term rendered thinketh is represented by Robinson as
correctly translated in this passage. The meaning of the apostle
appears to have been this, that others who were, from their
circumstances and fancied characters, very confident of their
safety, had been finally cast off and lost; therefore, take heed
to yourselves, lest being similarly situated, you in like manner
deceive yourselves; and while you think that you stand, you should
fall and perish.

But it may be
said, that the apostle speaks of those as falling who had eaten of
the spiritual meat, and drank of the rock Christ, and therefore
must have been real saints. To this I reply, that the apostle does
indeed use universal language, and speak of all the Israelites as
doing these things; but who will soberly contend that he intended
really to be understood as affirming, that all the Israelites that
passed through the sea, &c., were true saints? What he says
does not necessitate the conclusion that any of them were truly
regenerated saints. They were all baptized unto Moses, that is,
were all introduced into the covenant of which he was the
mediator. They all ate of the same spiritual bread, that is, the
manna on which the Lord fed them. They all drank of the spiritual
rock; that is, of the water that gushed from the rock when Moses
smote it with his rod, and which rock was a type of Christ, as was
also the manna. Now, does the apostle mean to say, that all the
Israelites understood the typical meaning of these waters, and
this manna, and that they were all truly spiritual or regenerate
persons? I think not. All that he intended appears to me to be,
that all the church of the Jews at the time were so far partakers
of the grace of Christ, as to receive this baptism, and as to have
this spiritual or typical bread and water, and also to enjoy great
light and much miraculous instruction, but that, nevertheless,
with many of them God was displeased. Their being baptized in
their passage through the Red Sea, did not imply that they so
understood and consented to it at the time, nor does the assertion
that they ate the spiritual food, and drank of the spiritual rock,
imply anything more than that they enjoyed these great and high
privileges, and counted themselves as very secure in consequence
of them. It is certainly straining the sense to make the apostle
affirm, that all the Israelites were real saints who passed
through the sea. Indeed, it is doubtful whether he intended to
affirm the real piety of any of them. It was not essential to his
purpose to do so.

In examining
the class of passages adduced to prove that some real saints have
fallen from grace and been lost, I am only concerned to show, that
they do not by fair construction necessitate this conclusion. I
may admit that, if the doctrine of perseverance were not found to
be clearly taught in the Bible, the not unnatural construction of
some of the class of texts in question might lead to the
conclusion that some, yea many, real saints have been lost.

But since,
from the previous examination it has appeared, that the doctrine
is plainly and unequivocally taught in the Bible, all that needs
to be shown of the class of texts now under consideration is, that
they do not, when fairly interpreted, really and unequivocally
teach that some true saints have been lost. This showing will
sufficiently vindicate the scriptures against the imputation of
self-contradiction, in both affirming and denying the same
doctrine. Observe, I am not called upon to show, that the passages
in question cannot be so construed, and with considerable
plausibility, as to make them contradict this doctrine; but all I
am called upon to show in this place is, that they do not
necessarily, by fair construction, contradict it; that they do not
necessitate the admission either that the Bible contradicts
itself, or that a different construction must be given to the
passages that seem to teach this doctrine.

With these
remarks I proceed to the examination of 2 Peter ii. 9-22: "The
Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to
reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But
chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness,
and despise government: presumptuous are they, self-willed; they
are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which
are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation
against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts,
made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they
understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;
And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that
count it pleasure to riot in the day-time. Spots they are, and
blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings, while
they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot
cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: a heart they have
exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have
forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of
Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;
But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking with man's
voice, forbade the madness of the prophet. These are wells without
water, clouds that are carried with a tempest; to whom the mist of
darkness is reserved for ever. For when they speak great swelling
words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh,
through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them
who live in error. While they promise them liberty, they
themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is
overcome, of the same is he brought into bondage. For if after
they have escaped the pollutions of the world, through the
knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again
entangled therein and overcome, the latter end is worse with them
than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have
known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to
return from the holy commandment delivered unto them. But it is
happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is
turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her
wallowing in the mire."

Now observe,
the apostle calls the persons of whom he speaks "wells without
water: clouds that are carried with a tempest:" that is, without
rain. His whole description of them shows, that he is speaking of
false professors or hypocrites. But it is inferred, that they are
fallen saints, because it is said they have "forsaken the right
way, and are gone astray after the error of Balaam," &c. But
this does not necessarily imply that they were in heart ever in
the right way, but that they have forsaken the right way, so far
as the outward life is concerned; in which respect they had
doubtless been in the right way, or they would not have been
admitted to membership in the church.

But it is
said of these false professors, that "they allure through lust and
much wantonness those who were clean escaped from those who live
in error." But neither does this necessitate the conclusion, that
they had escaped in heart from those that lived in error, but
merely that they had for the time being outwardly abandoned their
idolatrous practices and companions, and had made a profession,
and put on the form of Christianity.

But it is
also said, verses 20-22: "For if after they have escaped the
pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of the Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, they are entangled therein and overcome, the
latter end is worse than the beginning. 21. For it had been better
for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after
they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered
unto them. 22. But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow
that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."

Neither does
this necessitate the conclusion, that they had in heart escaped
from the pollutions that are in the world, but merely that they
had outwardly reformed. What is said in the last verse seems to
favour this construction. Verse 22: "But it is happened unto them
according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit
again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."
That is, the dog has returned to his vomit, because he remains a
dog, and is not changed; and the sow that is washed to her
wallowing in the mire, because she is still a sow, and her washing
has not changed her nature. So, the apostle would say, by
returning to their former ways, do the persons in question show,
that they have experienced no radical change; but on the contrary,
that they are only like a washed sow, sinners still, who have been
only outwardly cleansed, while within they are the same as ever.
This appears to me to be all that can fairly be made out of this
passage.

I will now
attend to 1 Tim. i. 19, 20: "Holding faith and a good conscience,
which some having put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck.
Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered unto
Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme." Of this text I may
say, that the apostle was writing to Timothy as an eminent
religious teacher, and was giving him cautions respecting his
influence in that relation. Hymeneus and Alexander, as we may
infer from this, and which is still more plainly taught in other
passages, were religious teachers, who had cast off or perverted
the true faith or doctrine of the gospel, and thus made shipwreck.
They had put away faith and a good conscience, and by so doing had
made shipwreck of the true gospel. This passage does not teach
that these men were true Christians, nor does it necessarily imply
that any had been true saints who had gone with them. The
expression, "some having put away," does not necessarily imply
that they once had true faith and a good conscience, but only that
they taught that which was inconsistent with either; or it may
mean that they had rejected or refused both faith and a good
conscience; that they practised and taught things inconsistent
with either true faith, or with the true gospel, or with a good
conscience, and had therefore run upon a rock, and wrecked their
souls, and the souls of those who followed them. But this proves
nothing in respect to their ever having been real saints.

The apostle
was speaking in popular language, and represented things as they
appeared to the observer. Thus we should speak of spurious
converts. It certainly does not appear to me, that this passage
would, without forced construction, warrant the conclusion that
some real saints had been lost, even apart from those passages
that, we have seen, seem unequivocally to teach the doctrine. Much
less, when those passages are considered, are we, as I think we
have seen, authorized so to construe this passage as to make it
either contradict them, or to necessitate such a modification of
their construction as is contended for by those who deny the
doctrine in question. If the doctrine in question is not really
taught in the Bible, we certainly should not believe it; but if it
is, we must not lightly reject it. We need candidly to weigh each
passage, and to understand, if we can, just what is the mind of
God as therein revealed.

The case of
Judas has been relied upon as an instance of utter apostacy, and
of consequent destruction. It is said, that in the Psalms Judas is
spoken of as the familiar friend of Christ in whom he trusted.
Psalms xli. 9: "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted,
which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."

There is no
reason to believe that Ps. xli. primarily respected either Christ
or Judas. Christ quotes the 9th verse, as is common in the New
Testament, not because it was originally spoken of himself or of
Judas, but because his case was like that of the Psalmist. In the
passage in which Christ quotes these words, he directly negatives
the idea of Judas being one of his true disciples. He says, John
xiii. 18, "I speak not of you all; I know whom I have chosen; but
that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me
hath lifted up his heel against me."

Here Christ
plainly teaches, that he to whom he applied these words, was not
chosen in the sense of being chosen to salvation, or in the sense
of his being a true saint. He says:

John vi. 64:
"But there are some of you who believe not. For Jesus knew from
the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should
betray him. 65. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no
man can come unto me, except it were given him of my Father. 70.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you
is a devil? 71. He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for
he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve."

He had chosen
twelve to follow him as pupils or disciples; but one of them he
had known from the beginning to be a wicked man. In John xvii. 12:
Christ says, "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in
thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be
fulfilled." Christ has been represented as saying to his Father in
this passage, that he had lost none that the Father had given him
except the son of perdition, that is Judas. But this is not the
meaning of the passage in Christ's prayer. He intended that of
those that the Father had given him, he had lost none; but the son
of perdition was lost that the scripture might be fulfilled.

The same form
of expression is used in Luke iv. 27: "And many lepers were in
Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was
cleansed, saving Naaman the Syrian. Here eime is used in
the original as meaning not except,but as an
adversative conjunction but. Naaman was not an Israelite,
but a heathen. Christ here used the same form of expression as in
John xvii. 12: In this passage in Luke it is plain, that he
intended that the prophet was not sent to any Israelite, but
to a heathen. This same form is also used, Matt. xii. 4: "How
he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread,
which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were
with him, but only for the priests."

Here the same
form of expression in the original is used, as in John xvii. 12.
The plain meaning of this form in Matt. xii. 4: is but, not
except.It was not lawful for David, nor for his
companions to eat the shew-bread, but it was lawful for the
priests to do so. So also, Acts xxi. 25: "As touching the Gentiles
which believe, we have written and concluded that they observe no
such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things
offered unto idols, and from blood, and from strangled, and from
fornication." Here the same form is used, and the plain meaning of
the phraseology is just that which I am contending for, in the
passage in Christ's prayer. Likewise, Rev. xxi. 27: "And there
shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither
whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but they which
are written in the Lamb's book of life." Here again the same form
of expression, and the same word in the original, are used in the
sense now contended for. Nothing shall enter into the city that
defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie,
but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life,
shall enter in. So beyond reasonable doubt, Christ intended to say
in his prayer to his Father: "While I was with them in the world I
kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept and
none of them is lost, that is, I have lost none of those whom thou
hast given me; but the son of perdition is lost, according to the
scriptures."

But it seems
to me, that the context shows clearly what the Saviour intended by
this form of expression. He says, verses 11 and 12: "And now I am
no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to
thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou
hast given me, that they may be one as we are. While I was with
them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest
me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of
perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled:" that is: "Do
thou keep them in thine own name and lose none of them, for while
I was with them I kept them in thy name, and lost none of them;
but the son of perdition is lost." He evidently did not mean to
say, I lost but one whom thou gavest me. Or that he kept in his
Father's name all except one of those whom the Father had given
him. He says, 6: "I have manifested thy name unto the men which
thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest
them me; and they have kept thy word. 7. Now they have known that
all things, whatsoever thou hast given me, are of thee. 8. For I
have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have
received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee,
and they have believed that thou didst send me. 9. I pray for
them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given
me; for they are thine. 10. And all mine are thine, and thine are
mine; and I am glorified in them. 11. And now I am no more in the
world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy
Father, keep through thy own name those whom thou hast given me,
that they may be one as we are. 12. While I was with them in the
world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have
kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the
scripture might be fulfilled."

Here he
plainly represents, that all who had been given him by the Father,
had known and kept the word of God. They had believed and
persevered, and Christ was glorified in them. Since he had kept
them in his Father's name, and had lost none of them, he proceeds
to pray, that now the Father will keep them in his own name. Let
any one ponder well this passage from verse 6 to 12, and he will
see, I trust, that this is a true view of the subject. At any rate
this cannot be a proof text to establish the fact, that any have
fallen from grace: for the plain reason, that the text can quite
as naturally at least, and I think with much greater propriety, be
quoted to sustain the doctrine which it is adduced to disprove.
Again:

Matt. xviii.
21: "Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how often shall my
brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? 22.
Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee until seven times; but
until seventy times seven. 23. Therefore is the kingdom of heaven
likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his
servants. 24. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought
unto him which owed ten thousand talents. 25. But forasmuch as he
had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife
and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26. The
servant therefore fell down and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have
patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27. Then the lord of
that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and
forgave him the debt. 28. But the same servant went out, and found
one of his fellow-servants, which owed him a hundred pence; and he
laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that
thou owest. 29. And his fellow-servant fell down at his feet, and
besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee
all. 30. And he would not; but went and cast him into prison, till
he should pay the debt. 31. So when his fellow-servants saw what
was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord
all that was done. 32. Then his lord, after that he had called
him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant. I forgave thee all that
debt, because thou desirest me: 33. Shouldest not thou also have
had compassion on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity on thee?
34. And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors,
till he should pay all that was due unto him. 35. So likewise
shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts
forgive not every one his brother their trespasses."

This has been
adduced to prove that some do fall from grace, especially the 32nd
to the 34th verses. But from this whole passage it is evident,
that what the Lord meant, was to set in a strong light the
necessity of a forgiving spirit, and that this is a condition of
salvation. It is a parable designed to illustrate this truth, but
does not assert as a fact, that any truly pardoned soul was ever
lost; nor does it imply this, as any one may see who will duly
weigh the whole parable. It does plainly imply, that a pardoned
soul would be lost should he apostatize; but it does not imply
that such a soul ever did apostatize. I consider next, 1 Tim. v.
12: "Having damnation, because they have cast off their first
faith." This passage stands in the following connexion:--

1 Tim. v. 9:
"Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years
old, having been the wife of one man: 10. Well reported of for
good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged
strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have
relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good
work. 11. But the younger widows refuse, for when they have begun
to wax wanton against Christ, they will marry; 12. Having
damnation, because they have cast off their first faith. 13. And
withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house;
and not only idle, but tattlers also, and busy bodies, speaking
things which they ought not."

The word
rendered damnation in this passage is often rendered judgment and
condemnation; and the meaning may be, that the younger widows were
found to wax wanton and fall into condemnation, and for a time at
least to disgrace their profession, by casting off their first
faith; or it may mean, that they were apt to be found among those
who renounced the profession of the true faith, which they at
first professed. They were young widows. Uneducated as heathen
women were and are, and it could not be surprising that many of
this class should make a spurious profession, and afterwards cast
off their profession through wantonness, and disgrace their
profession. The apostle, therefore, warns Timothy against too
hasty a reception of them, or against having too early a
confidence in the reality of their piety.

As every one
knows, that Dr. Adam Clarke was a strong opponent of the doctrine
of the perseverance of the saints, I give his views of this
passage from his commentary. See Clarke, on verses 3, 9, 11 and
12:--

"Verse 3:
'Honour widows that are widows indeed.' One meaning of the word
timao, to honour, is to support, sustain, &c., Matt.
xv. 45, and here it is most obviously to be taken in this sense.
Provide for those widows especially, which are widows indeed;
persons truly destitute, being aged and helpless; and having
neither children nor friends to take care of them; and who behave
as becometh their destitute state.

"Verse 9:
'Take not into the number.' Let her not be taken into the list of
those for which the church must provide. But some think that the
apostle means the list of those who were deaconesses in the
church; and that no widow was to be admitted into the rank who did
not answer to the following character.

"Verse 11:
'But the younger widows refuse.' Do not admit those into this
office who are under sixty years of age. Probably those who were
received into such a list, promised to abide in their widowhood.
But as young or comparatively young women, might have both
occasion and temptations to re-marry, and so break their
engagement to Christ, they should not be admitted. Not that the
apostle condemns their re-marrying as a crime in itself, but
because it was contrary to their engagement.

"'Wax
wanton.' Katastreniasosi,from kata
intensive, and streniao, to act in a luxurious or wanton
manner. The word is supposed to be derived from sterein, to
remove, and enia, the rein; and is a metaphor taken from a
pampered horse, from whose mouth the rein has been removed; so
that there is nothing to check or confine him. The metaphor is
plain enough, and the application easy.

"Verse 12:
'Having damnation.' In the sense in which we use this word, I am
satisfied the apostle never intended it. It is likely that he
refers here to some promise or engagement, which they made when
taken on the list already mentioned; and now they have the guilt
of having violated that promise; that is the krima, or
condemnation, of which the apostle speaks.

"'They have
cast off their first faith.' By pledging their fidelity to a
husband, they have cast off their fidelity to Christ; as a married
life and their previous engagement are incompatible. Dr. Macknight
translates these two verses thus:--'But the younger widows reject;
for when they cannot endure Christ's rein, they will marry;
incurring condemnation, because they have put away their first
fidelity.'"

This passage
does not assert, that any real Christian had fallen and had been
lost, and the most that can be made of it is that they may, or can
do so, and that there is danger of apostacy. This I fully admit
and maintain; that is, that humanly speaking there is danger;
which is the only sense in which there is danger that any event
may be different from what it, in fact, turns out to be. I have
already said, and shall have occasion to say again, that there is,
and can be, no danger in the sense of real uncertainty, that any
event whatever will be different from what it turns out to be, and
from what God foresees that it will be. But in the sense of
probability, judging from the natural course of events as they
appear to us, there may be a high degree of probability, and
therefore the utmost danger that things may be different from what
in fact they turn out to be, and from what God foresees that they
will be, and from what they really would be, were it not for the
warnings, and threatenings, and a consequent sense of danger.

Again: It has
been said, that from Christ's letters to the churches in Asia,
recorded in Revelations, we learn that those churches, some of
them at least, were in a state of apostacy from God; and that from
the fact that the judgments of God annihilated those churches,
there is reason to believe that the apostacy was complete and
final, and their destruction certain. To this I reply, that those
letters were written to churches as such, just as the prophets
spoke of the Jewish Church as such. The things which the prophets
declare of the Jewish church were declared of them as a body of
professed saints, some generations of whom had more, and some
less, real piety. The prophets would rebuke one generation for
their backsliding and apostacy, without meaning to represent that
the particular individuals they addressed were ever true saints,
but meaning only that the body as such was in a degenerate and
apostate state, compared with what the body as such had been in
former times. So Christ writes to the churches of Asia, and
reproves them for their backslidden and apostate condition,
asserts that they had fallen, had left their first love, &c.,
from which, however, we are not to infer, that he intended to say
this of those who had been truly converted as individuals, but
merely that those churches as bodies had fallen, and were now
composed of members as a whole who were in the state of which he
complained; just as we say of the Roman Catholic church, or of the
Lutheran or German Reformed, or of other bodies in which piety is
at a low ebb, that they have left their first love, &c. In
saying this, we should not mean to be understood as affirming,
that the individuals who now compose those churches were at any
time in a better spiritual state than they are at present but only
that the churches as such are fallen from what those bodies once
were, and had left the love, and zeal, and obedience once
manifested in them.

The churches
of Asia were doubtless, when first gathered by the apostles and
primitive ministers, full of faith, and zeal, and love. But things
had changed. Many of the members had changed, and perhaps every
member who had originally composed those churches was dead,
previous to the time when these letters were written. However this
may be, there had doubtless been great changes in the membership
of those churches; and since they were evidently addressed as
bodies, it cannot be fairly inferred, from what is said, that the
same persons addressed had fallen from a state of high
spirituality into backsliding or apostacy, but that was true only
of the then present membership, when compared with the former
membership and state of the churches. These letters cannot be
justly relied upon as disproving the doctrine in question; for the
utmost that can be made of them is, that those churches as bodies
were at the time in a state of declension.

The passages
we have examined are, so far as I know, the principal ones upon
which reliance has been placed to disprove the doctrine in
question. I have read over attentively several times the views of
Mr. Fletcher, in his Scripture Scales, and the passages quoted by
him to disprove this doctrine. His chief reliance is manifestly
upon the numerous passages that imply the possibility and danger
of falling, rather than on any passages that unequivocally teach
that any have fallen or will utterly fall. I am not aware that any
respectable writer has laid much stress upon other passages than
those I have examined, as expressly teaching, or unequivocally
implying the fact of the fall and ruin of real saints. There may
be such writers and such passages as those of which I speak; but
if there are, I do not recollect to have seen them.

REMARKS.

1. If the
doctrine under consideration is not true, I cannot see upon what
ground we can affirm, or even confidently hope, that many of our
pious friends who have died have gone to heaven. Suppose they held
on their way until the last hours of life. If we may not believe
that the faithfulness of God prevailed to keep them through the
last conflict, what reason have we to affirm that they were
preserved from sin and apostacy in their last hours, and saved? If
the sovereign grace of God does not protect them against the wiles
and malice of Satan, in their feebleness, and in the wreck of
their habitation of clay, what has become of them? I must confess
that, if I did not expect the covenanted mercy and faithfulness of
God to prevail, and to sustain the soul under such circumstances,
I should have very little expectation that any would be saved. If
I could have any confidence that Christians would stand fast while
in health, aside from the truth of this doctrine, still I should
expect that Satan would overcome them in the end, when they passed
through the last great struggle. Who could then trust to the
strength of his own purposes?

2. But I
could no more hope, that myself or any one else, would persevere
in holiness in our best estate, even for one day or hour, if not
kept by the power of God through faith, than I could hope to fly
to heaven.

As I have
before said, there is no hope of any one's persevering, except in
so far as free grace anticipates and secures the concurrence of
free will. The soul must be called, and effectually called, and
perpetually called, or it will not follow Christ for an hour. I
say again, that by effectual calling, I do not mean an
irresistible calling. I do not mean a calling that cannot, or that
might not be resisted; but I do mean by an effectual calling, a
calling that is not in fact resisted, a calling that does in fact
secure the voluntary obedience of the soul. This is my only hope
in respect to myself, or any body else. This grace I regard as
vouchsafed to me in the covenant of grace, or as a reward of
Christ's obedience unto death. It is pledged to secure the
salvation of those whom the Father has from eternity given to the
Son. The Holy Spirit is given to them to secure their salvation,
and I have no expectation that any others will ever be saved. But
these, every one of them, will surely be saved. There is, there
can be no hope for any others. Others are able to repent, but they
will not. Others might be saved, if they would believe, and comply
with the conditions of salvation, but they will not.

We have seen,
that none come to Christ, except they are drawn of the Father, and
that the Father draws to Christ those and those only whom he has
given to Christ, and also, that it is the Father's design that of
those whom he has given to Christ, he should lose none, but that
he should raise them up at the last day. This is the only hope
that any will be saved. Strike out this foundation, and what shall
the righteous do? Strike out from the Bible the doctrine of God's
covenanted faithfulness to Christ--the truth that the Father has
given to him a certain number whose salvation he foresees, that he
could and should secure, and I despair of myself and of every body
else. Where is any other ground of hope? I know not
where.

This
file is CERTIFIED BY GOSPEL TRUTH MINISTRIES TO BE
CONFORMED TO THE ORIGINAL TEXT. For authenticity
verification, its contents can be compared to the
original file at www.GospelTruth.net
or by contacting Gospel Truth P.O. Box 6322, Orange, CA
92863. (C)2000. This file is not to be changed in any
way, nor to be sold, nor this seal to be
removed.